want the fbi to do anything.let the fbi do it, well, how about other paths? what about having an independent white house counsel to look into it if the republicans of the white house are so scared of the prospect of the fbi doing it. joining me now the senator of hawaii, she supported the idea that the fbi should have investigated the manner, senator hurono. >> thank you, good evening. >> how do you understand your committee to proceed? >> there is no negotiations as chuck grassley and the community going forward and what i can consider in the past of an apoa approa approach. you laid out clearly why the fbi investigation should occur and the reason they don't want this to occur or anything for this to happen is that is anything that get in the way of fast tracking brett kavanaugh's confirmation in the supreme court is fwhot whe fwhot -- not where the republicans are. there are some important cases coming before the supreme court. they need brett kavanaugh's fifth vote and they don't want any 4-4 ties anymore. >>

but i am surprised that he's -- into the fbi investigation, because he hates the fbi.ep state. but i think he can count and do the math. and i think that's the only reason he wants to do it, is because he knows he doesn't have the votes without it. >> the thing is, he can now blame the fbi, if he doesn't like how that's going. and that's what we're going to have to look at. and how many more times? that clip we played, the news was just breaking. he's going to be asked several more times this week what he thinks about her testimony. and if it shifts -- we're going to be back in the same place. >> and he's already kicked the hornet's nest a couple of times and really risked ale answienat su susan collins wasn't happy last time. will he mind his ps and qs? it's happened before, it's not impossible. >> how much say would the president have in what the fbi does over the next few days? >> in terms of how they carry out their actual interviews, he doesn't have any say at all. but in terms of the scope, again, he is the driver on that. we have to learn more. we need more repo

want the fbi doing anything. fbi do it, how about anybody else? how about this other path? what about an independent, outside counsel look into it instead, if the republicans and the white house are so scared of the prospect of the fbi doing it? joining us now is senator maise hirono of hawaii. i appreciate your time tonight. >> certainly. good evening. >> thank you for being here. can you give us your sense of state of play where negotiations stand, how you understand your committee is going to proceed? >> there are no negotiations. as chuck grassley and the committee basically going forward and what i consider a seat of the pants kind of approach. so you laid out really clearly, rachel, why the fbi investigation should occur. and the reason they don't want this to occur or anything like this to happen is anything that gets in the way of fasttracking judge kavanaugh's assent to the supreme court are not where the republicans r they need to get him on the court lickety split before the midterm elections. they don

the fbi is going to do their seventh check. it's going on now by the president, who tweeted that out. seventh check. the fbi, there's no forensics they can check. i hate to admit i watch "forensic files" a lot. it's amazing 35 years later they find people because of new technology we have that we can catch killers. there's no place to go look. the only thing the fbi can do is interview the same four people that -- >> dr. ford, sean, hasn't even filed charges in maryland where this took place. >> sean: is that gonna happen this weekend? >> we don't know, do we? now we're asking the fbi to come in. >> sean: is that part of the plan? >> i wonder if that's going to be part of the plan. if the dems are going to push. the american people are not going to be fooled by this political theater. tammy said it best. i was thinking of the exact same term, tammy. collateral damage. the collateral damage is our justice system, our foundation of our country. it's the american people themselves. >> our sons and daughters. >> judge kavanaugh and

youaid nobody's asked the fbi or we could ask the fbi. i actually have. i think others have. i think that the issue is that part of what an fbi report does is to a investigate seek either corroborating or exculpatory evidence. it's not so muc the conclusion that it draws asth the bre of the evidence that is sought out through the investigation and the difference between what somebody might say to an fbi beingwhen they're examined and, for instance, mr. judge's letter signed by his lawyer, sent in. it's just a different thing. and i believe still that this i the first background investigation in the history of background investigations that hasn't been reopened when new credible derogatory information was raised about the subject, about the nominee. so, you know, i just didn't want to let the point you made stand without referencing what we have tried to do. >> pardon me,ut i'll just add to the point you made, the letter was sent to the fb the fbi sent it to the white house with a letter saying the case is closed. we're taking a break now for senator -- we're taking a break no

what role, exactly, would the fbi or could the fbi play in all of this catherine. >> trace, the fbi doesinvestigation, one is a criminal investigation and the other is a background check. under this scenario, they would have to get a request from the agency that puts the nomination forward so the white house or the president or the general counsel directing the fbi to reengage and conduct additional interviews with known witnesses in this particular case. the second kind of investigation is a criminal investigation based on the fact pattern here. there just isn't grounds for the fbi to get involved because the alleged sexual assault would really fall within the parameters of a state crime. the fbi would only get involved if there was evidence of a federal crime, for example child trafficking taking a minor across state lines which is not alleged here, trace. >> trace: i know we watched this hearing yesterday, catherine, all eyes were on this thing and we heard again and again that the fbi doesn't reach conclusions. >> that's correct. >> trace: would that shift in this investigation? woul

the fbi does this quickly.r the justice department has seen a rush come through an a judicial confirmation investigation. they can do it expeditiously. it won't delay unnecessarily. and at the same time it will give dr. ford the time that she needs and the time that she deserves, quite honestly, as a non-lawyer who's never testified on the hill before to prepare her testimony, to understand the process and to appear so she along with every other witness and all of the information that the fbi uncovers can be presented to centers. >> and jill, there were two reasons why the bush white house ordered the fbi to investigate anita hill's accusations. one was they actually had some confidence in their nominee, in that their nominee was telling it truth. and the other was they couldn't possibly expect the public to allow this confirmation to go forward or the senate to go forward without an additional fbi investigation. >> i think that's true. but in this day of alternative facts, which are really lies -- there is no

he's not limiting the new background check saying the fbi has free rein. >> the fbi, as you know, is all over talking to everybody. >> well, not exactly everybody. according to one of the president's harshest critics, lawyer michael avenatti who represents a third accuser. >> if the fbi does not meet with my client or question her, then i think that's going to call into question who told the fbi not to meet with her. >> the week supreme court battle setting up the season premiere of "saturday night live." >> this is my speech. there is others like it, but this is mine. i wrote it myself last night while screaming into an empty bag of doritos. >> so glad "snl" is back. we begin this morning with new details about the scope of the fbi investigation into sexual assault allegations against brett kavanaugh. claims he has repeatedly denied. for now the fbi will look into the allegations made by christine blasey ford and deborah ramirez. an attorney for ramirez released a statement saying, we can confirm the fbi has reached out to interview her and she has agreed to cooperate with their inv

the fbi is going to do their seventh check. it's going on now by the president, who tweeted that out. seventh check. the fbi, there's no forensics they can check. i hate to admit i watch "forensic files" a lot. it's amazing 35 years later they find people because of new technology we have that we can catch killers. there's no place to go look. the only thing the fbi can do is interview the same four people that -- >> dr. ford, sean, hasn't even filed charges in maryland where this took place. >> sean: is that gonna happen this weekend? >> we don't know, do we? now we're asking the fbi to come in. >> sean: is that part of the plan? >> i wonder if that's going to be part of the plan. if the dems are going to push. the american people are not going to be fooled by this political theater. tammy said it best. i was thinking of the exact same term, tammy. collateral damage. the collateral damage is our justice system, our foundation of our country. it's the american people themselves. >> our sons and daughters. >> judge kavanaugh and

that's the job of the fbi. and if anyone is obstructing it, that should be stopped. >> and why don't i read a little bit of what james comey did say in an op-ed in the "new york times." in part, once they start interviewing, every witness knows the consequences. of course, the bureau won't have subpoena power but most people will speak to them, refusal to do so is its own kind of statement. frank put that together with james comey and what he just said. i'm talking about dianne feinstein's letter there to don mcgann and ray as well. >> yeah, i think we need transparency here. i think the american public and the judiciary committee needs to know exactly what the directives were from the white house to the fbi. what handcuffs have been put on? why are they not being allowed to do what they need to do? and if the fbi comes in and says we want to interview additional people and additional leads, the following accusers have come in, survivors have come into our field offices and reported information. we would like t

of the fbi.o now we have a request from the white house, and from everything that we're being told certainly the parameters and where exactly the fbi goes in all of this is in some ways being dictated by the white house. so we shouldn't expect a full-fledged criminal investigation here. they're not going the try to probably look into whether or not this sexual assault or other sexual assaults actually occurred. >> hold on one second. i want to go to mitch mcconnell on the senate floor >>> this morning the judiciary committee reported out judge kavanaugh favorably, all 11 republican members of the judiciary committee voted in favor of reporting him out with a favorable recommendation. number two, we will shortly move to proceed to the kavanaugh nomination, and i'm pleased to announce all 51 republican members of the senate support the motion to proceed to the nomination. 100% of the republican conference supports proceeding to the kavanaugh nomination. now, in committee they reviewed the most page

to fbi agents is a crime. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase. start with 100% cleancheese? ingredients. like vermont white cheddar. then... add bacon, bbq chicken, or baja blend. catering and delivery now available. panera. food as it should be. monitor their blood glucose every day. which means they have to stop. and stick their fingers. repeatedly. today, life-changing technology from abbott makes it possible to track glucose levels. without drawing a drop of blood, again and again. the most personal technology, is technology with the power to change your life. life. to the fullest. >>> before professor anita hill testify today the senate judiciary committee accusing clarence thomas of sexual harassment, the president of the united states, george h.w. bush ordered the fbi to i

new reaction from the president to the scope of the fbi investigation of brett kavanaugh. >> the fbi, as you know, is all over talking to everybody. and i would expect, he's a high quality person. i would expect it's going to turn out very well for the judge. >> but a white house official tells us aou different story. details ahead. >> making contact. who the fbi has reached out to in their reopened investigation, including an alleged key witness. >> mark judge. >> mark m judge. >> mark judge. >> mark judge. >> and live from new york, snl returns with matt damon in the hot seat. >> this is my speech. there are others liket but this is mine. i wrote it myself last night while screaming into an empty bag of doritos. >> we begin with new details about thewi scope of the fbi investigation into sexual assault allegations against brett kavanaugh. claims he has repeatedly denied. for now,at the fbi will look in the allegations made by christine blasey ford and deborah ramirez. an attorney for ramirez released a statement saying we can confirm theca fbi has reached o to interview her and she

by the fbi? or some interview by the fbi under oath? under penalty of felony, he said was kind of event didn't happen and that i never did or would have done something like that. >> is a federal judge, you always want the best evidence, don't you? >> senator, he has said and all the witnesses present. look at ms. keyser statement. >> let me move on to another topic. you have testified to this committee this morning, this afternoon, "this whole two-week effort has been calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election. fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside after being opposition groups." is it your testimony that the motivation of the courageous woman who sat where you did just a short time ago was revenge on behalf of a left-wing conspiracy or the clintons? >> senator, i said in my opening statement that she preferred confidentiality. her confidentiality was destro

fbi. >> you want to reach the truth?e easy way to do that, ask the fbi to investigate. >> judge kavanaugh, if he truly believes there's no evidence, no witnesses that can prove their case, should be joining us in demanding a thorough fbi investigation. >> what i have struggled with, judge kavanaugh, is the absence of a fair federal law enforcement-driven, nonpartisan process. why don't you just ask the president. dr. ford can't do this. we clearly haven't been able to do this. just ask the president to reopen the fbi investigation. >> are you willing to ask the white house to authorize the fbi to investigate the claims that have been made against you?im >> all the democrats on this committee are requesting an fbi investigation because you did say all we have to do is ask. the implication being if we ask an investigation will happen and it has not happened. >> never in the history of background investigations has an investigation not been pursued when new credible derogatory information was brought forward about the nomin

the fbi will now look into dr. christine blasey ford's allegations against judge brett kavanaugh after another dramatic day today. tonight, the republican senator who was stopped in the elevator by victims who told him their voices must be heard. that dr. ford deserves a fair investigation. >>> then, just as the senate judiciary committee was about to vote. that same senator, jeff flake and his bold move, pushing for a one-week pause to give the fbi time to investigate the allegations. >>> also tonight, the cameras were right there just moments after president trump learned of this surprise turn. his reaction. >>> this evening after dr. ford and judge kavanaugh, now the third man allegedly in that room, mark judge, and what is he now saying tonight. >>> the other major news this friday night. the deadly earthquake triggering a massive tsunami, sweeping away homes. new reports coming in now, the aftershocks. >>> the warning tonight from facebook. the potentially massive security breach involving millions. 90 million

if the fbi does not meet or question her, that's going to call into question who told the fbi not tot with her. >> michael avenatti calling the fbi to interview his client. arundelmore for bustle.com. alex sietzwall. >> alex, is there a clear understanding of what would be included? >> the key here is that it is very they're more going to speaking -- >> can someone say, i don't want to speak to you? the fbi can leave the front porch and walk away? >> it doesn't look good, politically if mike judge agrees no the to talk. there are some powers that the fbi has obviously if the senate does not. for instance, you can't lie to a federal agent. if the fbi sits down with mike judge and says -- asks him about the events, he's under intense pressure to tell the truth. judge also didn't speak to the senate. his lawyer has said he will speak. if what doctor. ford says is true, there are three people on the planet who know about it. "los angeles times" also reported as early as last night the fbi moved to speak to the lawyer of one of these other accuser. >>> just for quickly clarify, it's mark

what does the fbi do? >> the fbi gathers statements from people who have information. they don't resolve credibility, they gather the information and the credibility determination is made by the ultimate fact-finder, which in this case is the united states senate, the committee, of course, hears gathered evidence. >> and the fbi then gives that report to the white house, if i understand it and the white house then transfers it to the senate, is that -- >> that's my understanding, yes. >> and as you indicated, it does not do -- it's been said many times here today, the fbi does not make judgments. it gives the senate committee information. at that point in time, if i understand the process correctly, the senate -- the united states senate judiciary committee has legal authorities, if it receives information in an fbi report that it wants to further investigate, the senate has legal authority to conduct further investigations, is that correct? >> that's my understanding. >> and that is what has been referenced here many times about how some of these witnesses that were i

the letter was sent to the fbi. the fbi sent it to the white house. the letter said the case is closed. we are taking a break now, senator. we are taking a 15 minute break. >> it has been a day of explosive testimony on capitol hill. brett kavanaugh telling members of the senate judiciary committee that he did not sexually assault christine blasey ford, the california professor who has accused him of sexual assault when they were teenagers and a house party. kavanaugh telling the senators that he cannot get his good name and reputation back. guided along in a sense by republican members of the committee, especially chided hisham, who democratic colleagues for what the president, kavanaugh, and other republicans consider a democratic hit job on kavanaugh's reputation. you can see senator orrin hatch and the chairman. they are taking a break, but we will continue our coverage. we have been following this all day. kevin, i am trying to remember a time on the hill absent the anita hill hearings where we have seen more explosive testimony. kevin: i am hard

is it entirely up to the fbi? in the coming days what the scope is or is that something you'll learn at the end of this week? >> my view is that the fbi is an organization, an investigative agency of consummate skill and integrity. it will follow the facts and the law and the evidence. where it leads them. and whereby think it has to lead them towards those additional allegations because they are part of that pattern. and i think also we all have to consider the demeanor that judge kavanaugh demonstrated at that hearing yesterday, filled with ranker and rage, anmous and arrogance and i think that the kind of temperament is reflective of those allegations as well. >> it's interesting that mark judge, obviously is i assume going to be interviewed. the reporting was obviously just that. you were questioning judge kavanaugh about that yesterday. and basically indicating what kavanaugh was saying under oath about what mark judge had submitted, judge kavanaugh kept saying he, under penalty of perjury sent an affidavit e

i think the fbi most fbi officers and individuals are heroes and do god's work. >> we all agree the fbiulated. >> they should try to ascertain how correct ford's testimony is. and if they can do that in any way that makes sense within their purview including the therapist notes which are not always easy to get. if they're made available because ford wants to be as helpful as possible, fine. in terms of looking at the leak, the leak was a bad thing. that's not going to change your mind whether or not you vote for kavanaugh. not that that doesn't have its place, i don't think it has its place right now. what's your take? >> it certainly doesn't seem like the most pressing issue as we are looking to confirm him to a lifetime appointment. i would be fine with the fbi looking at anything that they chose to look at. that doesn't seem like the most pressing concern right now. >> all right. so now let me go from sunshine to rain. here's my fear, okay. my fear is, and i don't like being a kasandra, but my fear is a week from now assuming christopher wray says, fine, you want it to be a week, tha

probably than what we will be able to find out from the fbi. the fbi does a background check. they don't do a criminal investigation. >> harris: right. then you saw that friend of brett kavanaugh mark judge who, you know, first that was a letter then it was stronger than that with language for penalty of perjury, and when you lie to congress, either the senate or the house, it's serious legal business. senator ernst, thank you for being on the program. >> thank you, harris. thank you. >> harris: we are in the middle of breaking news and we want to tell everybody on capitol hill that is the full senate floor. we have chris wallace alongside, too. chris, what we are hearing is that senator chris flake could speak again. this is complicated now. because i truly want to try to understand how you make a deal that you don't control. senator flake makes a deal. he knows the power of his vote. senator majority leader mitch mcconnell does what. >> he counts votes. he sees if he can get to 50 without jeff flake. if he can get to 50 without flake, is going to proceed. he will bring this

one week in order to let the fbi ea for up to but not more than one week in order to let the fbi co for up to but not more than one week in order to let the fbi our up to but not more than one week in order to let the fbi ount fl up to but not more than one week in order to let the fbi unt flo up to but not more than one week in order to let the fbi floor v has bent over backwards to do investigations from this committee and to delay there vote in this committee for a week so that judge or that -- that miss ford, dr. ford could be heard. and she was yesterday. so that's with that agreement, i will vote to the advance the bill to the floor. >> clerk will call roll. >> could we have a description. >> what are we voting on? >> we are voting on the motion to report the nomination to the floor. the clerk will call the roll >> wait, that's not my understanding of what mr. chairman, let the senator explain it. >>> that is my -- my understanding and if the democrats could speak to it if chris or you as we talked about before that the democrats would accept and endorse a one-week fbi investi

if it is a smear job as he claims, the fbi will find that out. they also might find out that it's no smear job. it's the gods honest truth. now, another tactic. republican leader has just trotted out old quote by senator wyden . at the fbi investigations don't provide conclusions become take to the leader, that's just the point. the purpose of the fbi investigation would not be to prove definitively who is right one way or the other. that is the judgment century are to make. butvi to provide the senate with just the facts, ,ju that's whate want, just the facts, to make a more informed decision, one the merck american people could have some confidence in. their confidence and judge kavanaugh and in the process is slipping daily, and with good reason. isn't this an impartial, fair, timely, non-dilatory fbi background check investigation fair to both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh? taking this out of the arena of politics and making it just about the facts. you bet it is. of course it's the right thing to do, but republican leaders in the white house

been done by the fbi. >> well, i hope he's voted down then. i mean, i think -- as you know, i was not in favor of him to begin with, for a variety of reasons, but i do think that this is a moment that was really a watershed for people who have not been heard. when flake -- when senator flake was in that elevator and maria -- anna maria and maria gallagher said, look at me. are you telling me that my experience doesn't matter? women have felt that way for so long. and these two spoke for so many that the ability to have an investigation -- this is before -- of course, we knew that the investigation was going to happen, i cannot tell you the palpable pain that existed among people who felt like plowing over, plowing through women. we had the most credible witness we could possibly have and it wasn't going to be good enough. >> let's show that sound because you were referring to it and senator flake said it affected him. it was after he said he would vote for kavanaugh but before he pushed for the compromise

you call chris wray, the fbi director.weeks, three weeks. but a week sounds really fast to me. >> phil, kavanaugh's high school friend, mike judge's lawyer says judge will cooperate. all we have seen is a sworn statement about the allegation. is there anything the fbi could learn from him they didn't get from the statement? >> oh, heck, yeah. you learn a lot about what people say and what they don't say. this is why time and multiple interviews is important. if he chooses not to say things about what happens or what happened or what he remembered happened years ago, and people in his circle contradict him, he's in trouble. so it's not just what he says, it's what he doesn't say. be careful. . >> and what about changing stories? is it possible? does it happen in investigations somebody submits a sworn statement and then they later investigate it and contradict it? >> oh, constantly. we lost cia applicants constantly for changing stories. you say you didn't smoke marijuana in college? six of your college friends say you did.

or we could ask the fbi. i actually have. i think others have, and i think that the issue is that part of what an fbi report does is to investigate and seek either corroborating or exculpatory evidence. it's not so much the conclusion that it draws that is the breadth of evidence that is south out through the investigation and the difference between what somebody might say to an fbi agent when they are being examined and, for instance, mr. judge's letter signed by his lawyer sent in. it's just a different thing, and -- and i believe still that this is the first background investigation in the history of bhrk ground investigations that hasn't been reopened when new credible derogatory information was raised about the subject, about the nominee. so i -- you know, i just -- i just want to let the point you made stand without referencing what we have tried to do. >> pardon me, but i'll just add to the point that you made. the letter was sent to the fbi. the fbi sent it to the white house with the white house sayi

or we could ask the fbi. i actually have. i think others have, and i think that the issue is that part of what an fbi report does is to investigate and seek either crop rating or exculpatory evidence, not so much the conclusion it draws of the breadth of the evidence sought out during the investigation and the difference between what somebody might say to an fbi agent when they are being examined and for instance, mr. judge's letter signed by his lawyer sent in. it's just a different thing, and i believe, still, that this is the first background investigation in the history of background investigations that hasn't been reopened when new, credible, derogatory information was raised about the subject, about the nominee. so i didn't want to let the point you made stand without referencing what we had tried to do. >> pardon me. but i'll add to the point you made. theler was sent to the fbi. the fbi sent it to the white house with the letter saying the case is closed. we're taking a break now. we're taking a break

how will the fbi proceed? >> they'll go out and immediately start to interview all the available witnesses related to dr. blasey ford's allegation and potentially the other allegations made as well. it's important to remember. this is not a criminal investigation. so it's different in two ways. one, they don't have the investigative tools they have in criminal investigations. they can't compel anyone's testimony through a grand jury subpoena. all interviews are entirely voluntary. so they'll seek to interview judge kavanaugh, christine blasey ford, mark judge and potentially once they've interviewed those key principle witnesses they'll move out to other people, some who have been identified in the press. some of whom dr. ford has identified in her testimony. and what they will do at the end, instead of reaching a conclusion like in a criminal investigation, where they say recommend charges or recommend no charges to the justice department, they'll compile all of the evidence they've found and get it to the ap

he'll tell us what the fbi

the fbi has free rein. what direction has the white house, whether it's white house counsel don mcgann or someone else, given the fbi? what are the contours of this investigation? >> as you know, it will be limited in scope. it's meant to last for one week, i believe, beginning last friday. it's not meant to be a fishing expedition. the fbi is not tasked with doing that here. as joe biden pointed out 27 years ago during the clarence thomas hearings and has many people have pointed out in the last couple of weeks, jake, the fbi does not draw conclusions. it provides information. judge kavanaugh has gone through six thorough vets within the span of his public service career, including one completed this last july. that is on the desk of every single senator to review. >> generally they look at actions that a person has taken after they turn 18, though, and these allegations were when he was 17. has the fbi been told don't look into julie swetnick's allegations? we don't find them credible? >> the white house

the fbi checks for the confirmed position. it's doing the job for the white house. that's part of the reason that this investigation is likely to leave so many people concerned that they are not getting the full story. because the nature of the investigation is the fbi is working with the white house as a client. the result is there will be lots of open questions when the investigation is finished. >> geoff bennett has been saying that all day that makes it crystal clear how this is going. >> you saw kellyanne conway asked about this. whether the white house counsel gave a list of witnesses to the fbi. none would flatly deny that. what's your sense of that? >> listen, trump had to order this fbi investigation after the hearing and after what senator flake did, but he can shape it. through his public comments, he wants to find out who leaked the letter that led to the revelation of dr. ford even though she didn't want to come out publicly. they can shape it and certainly we are not seeing julie swetnick being contacted yet. the

he met part of me that i will just add to the point you made, the letter was sent to the fbi, the fbi sent it to the white house with the letter saying the case w is closed. we are taking a break now. a 15 minute break.

they gave statements to the fbi.e was not any kind of criminal investigation with the anita hill circumstance. >> we should investigate both. >> they both need to be heard. >> ladies, thank you very much. we enjoy having you. ♪ you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia. add-on advantage. plaque psoriasis tremfya® is for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. with tremfya®, you can get clearer. and stay clearer. in fact, most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks stayed clearer through 48 weeks. tremfya® works better than humira® at providing clearer skin, and more patients were symptom free with tremfya®. tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have

or we could ask the fbi. i actually have. i think others have. and i think that the issue is that part of what an fbi report does is to investigate and seek either corroborating or exculpatory evidence. it's not so much the conclusion that it draws as the breadth of the evidence that is sought out through the investigation and the difference between what somebody might say to an fbi agent when they're being examined and, for instance, mr. judge's letter, signed by his lawyer, sent in. it's just a different thing. and i believe still that this is the first background investigation in the history of background investigations that hasn't been reopened when new credible derogatory information was raised about the subject, about the nominee. so, you know, i just didn't want let the point you made stand without referencing what we had tried to do. >> pardon me, but i'll just add to the point you made. the letter was sent to the fbi. the fbi sent it to the white house with a letter saying the case is closed. we're t

>> well, chris, as you know the fbi does not take direction from me, they take direction from the fbi director and from the white house. it's an executive branch agency. so i can talk about what i hope they will do, what i think would be reasonable for them to do but i'm not able to direct them in any way. if they take up a supplemental background investigation -- they would question some of the folks who have already come forward in the public and made statements about judge kavanaugh. for example you were talking at the opening of the show about the credibility of his categorical denial that he's ever had a night he can't remember from drinking. a kaunl class mate, roommate, acquaintances to say that's not true. we were with him, we've got evidence and there's obviously ea list of folk whose are class mates or friends who have come forward to say we support his characterization. so i think there's a fairly ready list of peep el -- >> what about ramirez and -- >> i think the statement made here was all credible allegations. so there's a number of alligations made public where there a

john. >> the fbi can do this quickly. it's what the fbi does, it's what the fbi is good at. sure, there is tons of leads, there is people you can talk to. but just because there's leads doesn't mean there's going to be evidence that something is going to come back showing that someone engaged in some sort of behavior. the fbi will go out, gather what fact are available and bring them back so the politicians can decide. >> danny, i'm going back to thit language of current credible allegations and what my mind is going to, putting myself in the position of some of the twisted democrats, brett kavanaugh, he drank too much. for instance, they think that's a credible allegation that he didn't refute. he claimed he didn't black out, but that's not credible given howw much chol was being drunk n high school or college. is that something the fbi could look into, they don't go to that level of detail. >> they can, actually. when you do a background investigation, you talk to associates to see what kind of person this is, that's routine. there's forensic things. >> but he's gone throu

so we'll have to wait and see what the fbi turns up. i think it's interesting how senator flake's comments to the atlantic -- and i would imagine that is kind of the sentiments of someone like susan collins as well. they do want to get to a yes. they don't want to be a no on their own party supreme court nominee, a man they think is very qualified to sit on the supreme court. if the fbi turns up nothing and we obviously don't know what they will find, i think this could help even -- could help improve his chances to the court. >> let's listen briefly to the president. again, it is limited in scope. if you listen to the president, he says start small but follow the leads. >> they have free reign. they'll be doing things we never even thought of and, hopefully, at the accusation, everything will be fine. >> everything will be fine. obviously they're trying to put their best spin on this. they fought this for a week plus. >> this is the exact opposite of what they wanted to do, what the president wanted to do, what senate leader mitch mcco

conduct this fbi background investigation.at would be up to president trump. to john roberts at the white house on what they are going to do. john? >> well, right now they are in the middle of meetings trying to see if they can put humpty dumpty back together now. with the request from the judiciary committee to the white house to do a supplemental fbi background investigation of the current credible allegations. i don't think the president is going to have much choice but to instruct his white house counsel don mcgahn call over to the fbi and say please talk to everybody involved here real question is how deep this is going to go. real credible allegations begin and end with the christine blasey ford allegations and therefore the investigation would be limited to interviews with judge kavanaugh potentially the other people who were said to be at that party or will democrats as mike emanuel suggested push to have these other allegations from debra ramirez and julie swetnick also included in this. so now we get back into a poli

by the fbi? >> an fbi investigation is the only way to answer some of these questions. >> stop the clock. this committee is running this hearing, not the white house, not don mcgahn, not even you as a nominee. >> i'm going to ask you one last time, are you willing to ask the white house to authorize the fbi to investigate the claims that have been made against you? >> well, i'll do whatever the committee wants, of course. >> and i've heard you say that. but i've not heard you answer a very specific question that's been asked. >> so democrats took a lot of heat yesterday for repeatedly continuing to demand an fbi investigation into dr. ford's claim. republican chairman chuck grassley insisting that senate committee staffers were perfectly capable of conducting the investigation. even after one of grassley's own staffers had to resign last week after old sexual harassment allegations against him emerged. this has ban huge sticking point for democrats, ever since dr. ford's allegation came to light.

what happens if a witness refuses to speak to the fbi given the battering that the fbi's taken under president trump? >> the same thing that happened when brett kavanaugh refused to answer if he was willing to have an fbi investigation. i mean, this is a very powerful part of this. i have no doubt that the crux of what is happened in those investigating rooms will make it to the press eventually. it's going to be very difficult to close the door on this once it starts going. we don't know what those people are going to say. we don't know what other leads they may put out there, what other things, what other paths this many lead to. the investigators, they're not going to present an opinion, they're not making an assessment. this is meant to be a conversation where they literally record back what was asked, what was said, they're not providing assessments to the credibility or through itfulness. but if someone volunteers a piece of information, you can't leave that unanswered, unresearched. >> cynthia, let me ask you about investigators and their desire to interview julia swetnick bec

the fbi could do this if the white house asked the fbi to do it. >> ken, to that point, who will make that determination? and the president said i have to look into it. he didn't say no but the extension for a week has been asked for. we don't know if it's granted because that's up to mitch mcconnell. what has to happen? the president and the justice department send a memo? >> my sense is the white house will have to work out with the fbi assuming this goes forward. the republicans who want it seem to have the leverage to make it happen. the white house will have to work out the scope of the investigation with the fbi. this would be the fbi reopening the back ground check on brett kavanaugh, and there is precedent for this. this is exactly what happened in the clarence thomas/anita hill matter in 1991. thefy tie did fbi did a three-d and came back with a report inconclusive, ali. i don't know that it's been made public. famously joe biden lamented the fact that it was inconclusive. republicans have been playing that clip of biden saying that in order to suggest that the fbi investigat

there has been a lot of talk here about needing an fbi investigation.een through a number of times now when the fbi does a background check with regard to a nomination, could you quickly describe that for us, what is the fbi do? the fbi gathers statements from people who have information, they don't resolve credibility, they gather the information and the credibility to terminate, the united states senate is the ultimate fact finder. the committee here has gathered evidence. and the fbi then gives that report to the white house, if i understand it, and the white house then transfers it to the senate, is that correct? that is my understanding. and as you indicated, it has been said many times you today, the fbi does not make judgements, it gives the senate committee information. at that point in time, if i understand the process correctly, the united states senate judiciary committee has legal authorities if it receives information in an fbi report and it wa nts to information in an fbi report and it wants to further investigate, the senate has legal aut

they should have gone to the fbi. i think republicans would have welcomed that and done all that was in their power to help, but, of course, they held these allegations until the last-minute. somebody among the democrats leaked them to the media and now we got the circus that we saw just yesterday and it's going to continue for a week, if not more, because we know democrats aren't really interested in getting to bottom of what happened here. they're interested in slow walking and blocking this nomination which is heart breaking for judge kavanaugh. liz: we're going to cut to the floor of the senate. we've got senator jeff flake about to speak on the floor of the senate judiciary panel about what is going on in his latest request to get an fbi probe lasting just one week. let's get to the senate floor. watch. forgive me, we're going to get to that in just a second. get to the business headlines first before we get on senator flake. the house passing tax reform 2.0 despite it being unlikely the senate will take action t

the fbi made that clear. i talked to an fbi official last week.said there was no criminal investigation. the department of justice has also tried to clarify. they release ad a statement sayg the letter was put into kavanaugh's background file last week. at this point, it's up to the white house to determine whether or not there should be a subsequent investigation. i want to point you to the department of justice's brief statement that they gave last night. they said that this allegation does not involve any potential crime. then this spokesperson for the doj continued on to say that the fbi does not make any judgement about the credibility or significance of any allegation. the people that i have spoken with said that at this point it's in the white house's hands. they would have to say whether or not they wanted the fbi to continue with more background investigation. we heard from the president today. he said that the fbi is not interested. i'm not sure that that is the case. it really does seem here -- it is the case that the white house needs

by the fbi? or some interview by the fbi under oath? >> under penalty of felony he says this kind of event didn't happen and that i never did or would have done something like that. >> as a federal judge you always want the best evidence don't you? >> he has said and all the witnesses present -- look at ms keyser's statement. >> you have testified to this committee this morning and this afternoon, this whole two week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with the parent pent up anger about president trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. is it your testimony that the motivation of the courageous woman who sat where you did just a short time ago was revenge on behalf of a left- wing conspiracy or the clintons? >> senator, i said in my opening statement that she preferred confidentiality. or confidentiality was destroyed by the actions of this committee

>> that's up to the fbi.onversations. >> you can interview these witnesses and not these witnesses? >> i don't think don mcgahn would do that. it's also senator flake and other who is said please go forward with this fbi investigation. >> she said there will be no interference from the white house and if there was the case like testimony from dr. ford or a written statement from one of the other accusers, does that mean the fbi doesn't need to go back and revisit and talk to the accusers and instead take another path and talk to other people? >> you have a complain. dr. ford, ramirez and swetnick. those are the complain ants. you start with that as the piece of evidence. then you move out as to how to corroborate this. the word credible means convincing. you need nothing further. a sin him in is capable of being proved. they are doing the plausible route. is this capable of being confirmed? they will start with the core and move out. the question is, do they have the authority to continue to move out when wit